Posted on 12/09/2004 10:29:14 PM PST by Former Military Chick
As silly as it may be in this age of Internet commerce, 24 states ban direct shipment of wine by out-of-state wineries. Three actually consider it a felony. Pursuant to a case the Supreme Court heard on Tuesday, it must decide if these state bans on direct-shipment of wine — wine that is shipped directly from the vineyard to the consumer — is constitutional. The case itself delves into a nasty tangle of constitutional intrepretation that should not be dismissed solely as a question of right vs. wrong.
Not surprisingly, for oenophiles and free traders, the case is quite simple: States should not be allowed to ban interstate shipments of wine while allowing intrastate shipments. They argue that the ban violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress sole authority to regulate interstate commerce. Although we are always in favor of preserving free trade between the states, this is not a question of what is the right policy solution. Rather, it's a question of what is constitutionally right.
The 21st Amendment, which ended Prohibition, provides in Section 2, "The transportation or importation into any State ... for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited." In other words, argue the states that ban direct shipment, the plain language of Section 2 allows states to regulate the "transportation or importation" of alcohol in any way they like. While this might seem ridiculous, the advent of Internet commerce should not trump rights explicitly granted to the states by the 21st Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Huh? Dormant?! What the heck is dormant about it???
Wine whine about fines ?.........BTTT !
The only thing dormant about it is the proper use of the ICC.
Right now the ICC can only be used to enable federal power grabs when they need justification for it. Real uses, like this wine issue, are verboten.
There is discussion of your concern in the remainder of the article. Good point here: "If a proper reading of the 21st Amendment finds that it in fact does repeal portions of the Commerce Clause, it would a far better precedent than if the court simply revoked a constitutional state right."
Let's not forget that, if it does, perhaps the A in BATF could be substantially curtailed, and alcohol could become a problem area for the federal government. One agency at a time, I think.
Yeah. I lean in the states rights direction myself. Instead of bypassing them, the wine industry should be addressing this on another level.
You can take away my right to light up, you can take away my right to say fire in a crowded theatre, but you will have to pull that bottle of out-of-state Syrah FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!
I hate this "granted" crap....
Retained; RETAINED by the States.
Irritating.
None of the states prohibit the importation of wine from other states. They only prohibit certain individuals from importing wine. The whole premise of the article is bogus.
States don't have rights, they have powers. The 21st amendment grants them the power to remain dry if they wish to, nothing more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.